Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-lists] Initial value of counter-increment needs to be something different from none (#3686)

We just discussed this in the meeting (see minutes).

When evaluating options here, some cases we considered were:
* author modifications to the `list-item` counter (to disable the implicit increment, or other modifications)
* author modifications to *other* counters that happen to be on the same element that implicitly modifies the `list-item` counter
* what the UA styles for `<li value>` and what (accidentally or intentionally) overrides them
* what the behavior for `<ol reversed>` is

So we have three alternative proposals that take a different approach, with subtle differences, made in the following order:

(A) @fantasai's proposal: if an element has `display: list-item`, then the `list-item` counter is incremented *unless* the `counter-increment` property contains a reference to the `list-item` counter.  (Authors can override this effect with `counter-increment: list-item 0`.

(B) @dbaron's proposal: if an element has `display: list-item`, then the `list-item` counter is incremented.  (Authors can override this effect with `counter-increment: list-item -1`, unless the list is reversed, in which case it would be by `1`.)

(C) @FremyCompany's proposal: if an element has `display: list-item`, then the `list-item` counter is incremented *unless* the `counter-reset`, `counter-set`, or `counter-increment` property contains a reference to the `list-item` counter.

I think there was probably the most support and the least objection to (A).

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by dbaron
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3686#issuecomment-468098431 using your GitHub account